[jinnzaman]

Part II: Ten Facts about Palestine You Won’t Hear About

Part II: Ten Facts about Palestine You Won’t Hear About | Global Intifada

Fact #1: Jews never had a majority of the population prior to declaring independence



In 1893, Arabs comprised 95% of the population and had continuous possession of the land for nearly 1300 years. Jewish immigration happened only within a 75 period and didn’t acquire significant property holdings. In 1948, the number of Jews was 650,000, 35% of the population within the mandate whereas there were 1.2 million Palestinians, 65% of the population. The Israeli claim to sovereignty is limited to areas where the population consented to the formation of the Israeli state or in areas where Jews had property. All other persons and property are by default not within the territorial boundaries of Israel but belong to Palestinians. Thus, the Palestinian argument to a right of return is strong by default since Palestinians formed the majority of the population in 1947. (p 15 of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War” by Benny Morris)

Fact #2: Israelis never owned the majority of property



Another key argument in the mythical narrative of the formation of Israel is that the Arabs forfeited their right to statehood by selling their property lawfully to Jews. This argument is false since the Palestinians did not sell much of their property to Jews. By 1947, Jews only owned 5.8% of the land, an extreme small percentage of the total land which is certainly too insufficient to support the declaration of independent sovereignty. This fact alone strongly establishes the right of return of Palestinians. If they were the legal owners of 94.2% of the property, then how can it be said that they do not have a right of return? This is where the Israeli narrative shifts and attempts to argue that the Palestinians “gave up” their right of return by either opposing the UN plan or by voluntarily fleeing the land due to the war. Let us scrutinize these two arguments.

(p 30 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe)



Fact #3: The UN Mandate Was Not Fair



The third argument is that the UN two-state solution granted sovereignty to Israel but it was rejected by the Arabs. Of course, if one scrutinizes the UN position, it makes perfect sense for why the native Palestinians would oppose the division of their lawfully owned land with a settler population that had only recently immigrated from the far reaches of the world. According to the UN plan, Palestine was intended to be divided into three parts: (1) 42% of the land would have gone to 818,000 Palestinians which included 10,000 Jews, (2) 56% of the land would have gone to 499,000 Jews with 438,000 Palestinians, and (3) the City of Jerusalem, with a total population of 200,000 was to be equally divided between Arabs and Jews. (p 35 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe) Although Palestinians comprised a majority of the population within Palestine, they were effectively granted minority of the land for their own state with almost 60% of their population in Israel instead of their own homeland. Given that Palestinians formed the majority of the population and owned the majority of the property within the land and had been in the land for more than a millennium, it makes absolute sense that they would have opposed the UN plan since it wasn’t a representation of the will of the people.



Fact #4: The displacement of the Palestinians occurred BEFORE the Arab armies invaded



From the perspective of the Israeli narrative, the Palestinians forfeited their right to return by intentionally leaving their land during the 1948 war. However, this argument fails completely since the population began departing prior to the 1948 war due to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israeli forces that began in March 1948 and ended six months later. By the time of its conclusion, 800,000 people had been forced to migrate, more than half of Palestine’s native population, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods forcibly emptied. (p xiii – xv of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe) Moreover, the argument that the population fled as a result of the war is fallacious as almost 250,000 Palestinians had already been expelled during the last months of the British mandate and before May 15th 1948, when Israel declared independence and was subsequently attacked by the Arab states. This point completely deconstructs the claim that the population fled due to the actions of the Arab governments.



The Israeli forces were more numerous, well-trained, and better armed than the Palestinian population. “All in all, on the eve of the 1948 war, the Jewish fighting force stood at around 50,000 troops, out of which 30,000 were fighting troops and the rest auxiliaries who lived in the various settlements. In May 1948, these troops could count on the assistance of a small air force and navy, and on the units of tanks, armoured cars and heavy artillery that accompanied them. Facing them were irregular para-military Palestinian outfits that numbered not more than 7000 troops: a fighting force that lacked all structure or hierarchy and was poorly equipped when compared with the Jewish forces. In addition, in February 1948, about 1000 volunteers had entered from the Arab world, reaching 3000 over the next few months.” Even during the 1948, the total number of Arab forces never reached 50,000 while the Israeli forces eventually grew to 80,000 troops. (p 44-45 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe) Thus, prior to the 1948 war, a few thousand irregular Palestinian forces were facing up to 50,000 well-trained, better-armed Israelis. Thus, when the attacks occurred, a largely defensive population really had no other alternative other than to flee.



Fact #5: Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay at home



In a post dated May 20, 2008, Spencer attempts to argue that the Palestinians left their home on their own volition at the request of elites tied to the invading Arab leaders in order to vanquish Israel. This point is completely rebutted by the fact that the exodus of the Palestinians began several months before the 1948 war even begun. However, textual evidence now shows that the majority of Arab leaders told the Palestinians to stay in their homes, but many Palestinians were forced to flee due to attacks on them by Israeli and Jewish forces. “In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee.” (p 95 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) If the Palestinians, the majority of the population in 1948 who owned the majority of the property were forced to flee by a powerful Israeli army, then obviously, they have a right to return to their land. Moreover, assuming for the sake of the argument that the Palestinians fled because the Arab leaders told them to or because it of the conditions of war and not because of the actions of Israeli forces, how is it that they wouldn’t have a right to return even if they left voluntarily? Fleeing a war doesn’t mean that one gives up one’s land. Had the Palestinians taken up citizenship in another state, an argument against their right of return might be stronger, but most Palestinians ended up in refugee camps and were not recognized as citizens in most of the Arab states. Furthermore, even if they were given citizenship in another country, it doesn’t undermine their right of return because a person can have dual citizenship – such as many Israelis who often have dual citizenship.



Fact #6: Most of the Arabs Haven’t Left but Still Live in the Area



Some will undoubtedly argue that the Palestinians fled to other countries and don’t have a right of return to their original land in Palestine. However, statistical information indicates otherwise since the majority of Palestinians still live in the area the British Mandate. In Israel, there are currently 5.3 million Jews and 1.36 million Arabs. In the Gaza and West Bank, there are 3.8 million Palestinians. In other words, the total number of Arabs living in the area is approximately 5.16 million, which means there are only 140,000 more Jews than Palestinians living in what used to be called Mandate Palestine. (p 87 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) However, if one includes the number of Palestinian refugees living in diaspora who still claim a right of return, the numbers tilt in favor of Palestinians. The three states with the highest Palestinian refugee population are Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. In 2001, there were 1,572,742 Palestinian refugees in Jordan, 370,144 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, 374,521 Palestinian refugees in Syria with a total of 2,317,407 within these three states. (Monde) If one were to add this to the total number of people of Palestinian descent, that comes to 7,477,407 which means that there are currently, 2,177,407 more Palestinians than Israelis. Thus, their claim to a right of return is still strong given that they are a majority of the people historically or contemporarily. Again, as was mentioned above, assuming for the sake of the argument that the Palestinians have taken up citizenship with other states, such as Jordan, this doesn’t negate their right of return since many Israelis have dual-citizenship and no one would argue that if they leave Israel they automatically lose citizenship or their property within that country.

[jinnzaman]

Fact #7: Research has shown a direct link that the land used for building settlements is privately owned by Palestinians



Another source of the claim that the Palestinians have a right of return in addition to the fact that they were largely ethnically cleansed from the area by Israeli is the fact that Israel has appropriated a good portion of Palestinian property. Research has shown that 32% of the land that Israel holds for the purpose of building settlements is privately owned by Palestinians (p 91 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) Even if one argued that the majority of Palestinians no longer have a claim to property in Israel since they were born in refugee camps, there cannot be a universal bar against Palestinians to returning to their land when it is clearly shown that Israelis are seizing it and using it for their own.



Fact #8: Israel has systematically destroyed Palestinian homes



The Palestinian argument of a right of return is strengthened by the fact that Israel has not only systematically seized Palestinian property but also systematically destroyed Palestinian homes. As pointed out above, Jews owned a little more than 5% of the land on the eve of independence, but by 1962, Israel owned almost 93% of the land within its borders and they were able to acquire this land by destroying some 531 Arab villages and expelling 11 urban neighborhoods of their populace. Such tactics have been used in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. According to Amnesty International, between 1967 and 2003, more than 10,000 homes in the West Bank and Gaza strip have been destroyed by Israel. (p 96-99 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt). The fact that Israel has historically and contemporarily engaged in the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and then destroyed them firmly establishes a Palestinian right of return since it can be shown that the Israeli seizure of land and destruction of property is unlawful. Israel has justified its destruction of homes usually on the grounds that they were homes of terrorists, but this undermines their moral argument since it is a clear admission of collective punishment and doesn’t seems to have been an effective deterrent to stopping terrorism anyway. Furthermore, even though the Israelis have destroyed Palestinian homes, the underlying claim of the right of return still applies since the land still lawfully belongs to Palestinians.



Fact #9: Israeli Leaders Have Committed Gross Human Rights Violations and Terrorism



The Israeli narrative attempts to portray the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the denial of their right of return as a struggle between freedom and tyranny, democracy and dictatorship, or security and terror. However, the argument that Israel is a democracy is at best tenuous since its treatment of the Palestinians amounts to apartheid by reducing them to second-class citizens in their own land and by restricting them to specific zones all the while their human rights to life, liberty, and property are being constantly violated. Israelis will argue that the treatment of Arabs in Israel is a sufficient rebuttal to this claim, but such arguments were used by other states that engaged in ethnic cleansing. For example, America up until the civil war had some states that engaged in slavery and some that didn’t, that didn’t mean that slavery didn’t exist. One could raise similar arguments about Nazi Germany which allowed certain Jews relative freedom of movement but simultaneously engaged in the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and others. The fact that Israelis are violating the human rights of Palestinians in the Gaza and West Bank isn’t undermined by their purported nice treatment of Arabs within their state.



Moreover, the portrayal of Israel as a bulwark of democracy in an undemocratic region is also weak since many of its neighbors have had varying degrees of democratization. The most obvious example, of course, is the Palestinians themselves who have also recently engaged in democratic elections that were fair and free, but the results of this election were not recognized by Israel since groups that were opposed to Israeli hegemony over Palestinian territory won the elections. The Israeli narrative, of course, refuses to recognize HAMAS in spite of winning the elections because it engages in terrorism. While it is undoubtedly true that terrorism should be combated, it is strange for the Israelis to object to negotiating with terrorists when several of their leaders were directly connected to terrorist organizations and have committed gross human rights abuses. “Indeed, terrorism was one of the key tactics that the Zionists used when they were in a similarly weak position and trying to obtain their own state. It was Jewish terrorists from the infamous Irgun, a militant Zionist group, who in late 1937 introduced into Palestine the now-familiar practice of placing bombs in buses and large crowds. Benny Morris speculates that “the Arabs may well have learned the value of terrorist bombings from the Jews.” Between 1944 and 1947, several Zionist organizations used terrorist attacks to drive the British from Palestine and took the lives of many innocent civilians along the way. Israeli terrorists also murdered the UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948, because they opposed his proposal to internationalize Jerusalem. The perpetrators of these acts were not isolated extremists: the leaders of the murder plot were eventually granted amnesty by the Israeli government and one of them was later to the Knesset. Another terrorist leader, who approved of Bernadotte’s murder but was not tried, was future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.” (p 102 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) While two wrongs don’t make a right, one wrong cannot be used as a pretense to justify committing another wrong. Israel doesn’t want to negotiate with HAMAS for territorial reasons, not moral reasons. In fact, it should be noted that Israel itself had assisted in the rise of HAMAS as an alternative to the secular nationalist groups within Palestine. Its only when HAMAS turned fanatically against Israel that the Israelis had a real big problem with the organization.



Moreover, Israel has elected several individuals that engaged in terrorism or committed human rights abuses, such as Menachem Begin (who headed the terrorist organization Irgun and became prime minister) and Ariel Sharon (who was found by an Israeli investigatory commission to bear personal responsibility for the massacring of innocent Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by the Phalangists, a Christian milita, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 yet also elected prime minister.) It is supreme hypocrisy for Israelis to refuse to negotiate with a legally elected government, in spite of it having links to terrorism and human rights violations, while at the same time allowed similar individuals within Israel to become heads of state as well. (p 99, 102 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt)



Also, assuming for the sake of argument that Israel can refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian government due to its terrorist links in spite of having a similar history, this still wouldn’t negate the right of return of Palestinians since the basis of their claim is historically unlinked to the current government which they have elected and arises from entirely different moral and legal claims. Arguing that the Palestinian right to return is negated by its form of government is ludicrous. No one would argue that Germans or Japanese lost ownership of their land due to the rise of the Nazism and Fascism. After all, the Israeli claim to the right of the land is based on biblical references in spite of the political governance of the territory having switched hands between the Romans, Arabs, Turks, and British. The right of return of the Palestinian people predates the elections of HAMAS and is a historically independent and unrelated moral claim.

[jinnzaman]

Fact #10: Israeli Claims to Being a Democracy are Undermined by its Ethnic and Religious Discrimination



As was pointed out above, one of the arguments used to justify Israeli ethnic cleansing and seizure of Palestinian land is that the Palestinians are anti-democratic terrorists whose values fundamentally clash with Western civilization. As was pointed out, such an argument doesn’t justify stealing Palestinian land and destroying their homes. Such an argument is further rebutted by the fact that Palestinians have begun adhering to democracy and this is not negated by the fact that they have elected individuals with terrorist ties since Israel has done the same exact thing. To further rebut the argument that Israeli democracy sufficiently justifies unconditional support, it should be pointed out that the Israeli version of democracy is severely limited by its discriminatory treatment of Israeli Arabs within the boundaries of Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians outside of the boundaries of Israel.



Israeli Arabs are discriminated against in a variety of ways, the two most prominent being property and marital restrictions. Although Israeli Arabs make up 17% of the total population, they are allotted only 3% of the land. Of this 3%, they can only build and live on 2% of it since 1% of the land is defined as agricultural land which cannot be built upon. Thus, 1.3 million people are forced to live on 2% of the land that their ancestors had previously 95% control of. (p 222-223 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe)



In addition to this property discrimination, there are marital restrictions on Israeli Arabs designed to control their population such as the “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law” which prohibits Israeli Arabs from marrying Palestinians. Proponents of the law make contradictory arguments. First, they argue that the law isn’t discriminatory because it doesn’t explicitly mention Israeli Arabs, but when it is pointed out that only Israeli Arabs are likely to marry Palestinians, they justify it on the grounds that it is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks in Israel. The argument that the law is not facially discriminatory is irrelevant since the law is discriminatory in its effect and merely uses cleverly phrased legalese to hide its discriminatory purpose. The argument that the law is intended to protect Israeli national security is undermined by the fact that any children produced from such a marriage may live in Israel up until the age of 12 when they will be expelled. (The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law) Why would a child born from an Israeli Arab/Palestinian marriage that lives in Israel for 12 years suddenly decide to engage in terrorism? If the target was truly to prevent terrorism, it wouldn’t concern children at all – regardless of their age. This shows that the underlying purpose of the law is not to really prevent terrorism – but to control the Arab population within Israel under the guise of preventing terrorism which reveals the inherent discrimination against Arabs within Israel. Population control is an obsession of many proponents of ethnic cleansing and its presence within Israel establishes a mens rea to justify the slaughtering and containment of Palestinians which is exactly what it has been doing in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and in refugee camps such as in Lebanon during its civil war. Israelis will undoubtedly argue that Israeli Arabs are not discriminated against and have certain rights and can vote, get jobs, and do all sorts of things, but the discrimination that they face is not justified by these things any more than Jim Crow laws were justified on similar grounds (such as having literacy tests which were designed to prevent Blacks from voting).



Additionally, Israeli claims to democracy are undermined by its aggressive regulation and destruction of Christian and Muslim religious sites throughout the modern area. For example, after 1948, Israel seized all religious endowments including the properties within them, and “transferred them first to the Custodian, then to the state, and eventually sold them to Jewish public bodies and private citizens.” (p 217 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe)



The following is an incomplete list of religious centers that were destroyed:

(1) Masjid al-Khayriyya destroyed and the city of Givatayim was built upon it,

(2) the rubble of the Birwa is presently beneath the cultivated land of the Jewish settlement of Ahihud,

(3) the 100 year old Mosque in Sarafand was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers on July 25, 2000,

(4) the mosques of Majdal and Qisarya were turned into restaurants,

(5) the Beersheba mosque was turned into a shop,

(6) the Ayn Hawd mosque was turned into a bar,

(7) part of the Zib mosque was turned into a resort village,

(8) the remains of the Ayn al-Zaytun mosque were turned into a milk farm in 2004,

(9) the Nabi Rubin mosque was blown up by Jewish fanatics in 1993,

(10) the Maqam of Shaykh Shehade was burned down in 2002,

(11) the Araba’in mosque of Baysan was ruined by an arson attack in March 2004,

(12) the Al-Umari and al-Bahr mosques in Tiberas were ruined in two similar attacks in June 2004,

(13) the al-Salam mosque in Zarughara was destroyed by bulldozers in 2003,

(14) the Maqam of Shaykh Sam’an near Kfar Saba was demolished in 2005 by unknown assailants,

(15) the Muslims were denied access to the mosque in Khalsa in the development town of Qiryat Shemona,

(16) the people of Kerem Maharal denied access to the mosque in the village of Ijzim, (17) the Wadi Hawarith mosque was ruined.



The following mosques or maqams were turned into synagogues:

(1) Wadi Unayn,

(2) Yazur,

(3) Kfar Inan,

(4) Daliyya,

(5) Abassiyya,

(6) Lifta mosque has been turned into a mikweh (Jewish ritual bath for women),



(pg 217-218 of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe)



In addition to the fairly obvious discrimination Israeli Arabs are subjected to and the destruction of Christian and Muslim religious sites by Israel or Israelis, the brutal suffering of the Palestinians completely undermines the moral authority of Israeli democracy. Palestinians essentially live in essentially a gigantic prison complex complete with high walls, humiliating searches, segregation from family members in other territories, etc. Israeli responses to terrorist acts go well beyond justifiable actions by engaging in collective punishment such as destroying entire homes, bombing power plants, cutting off foreign aid, etc. An entire book could be written about the Israeli oppression of Palestinians and it isn’t my intent to state every single wrong, but to merely point out that not everything that Israel does can be justified by the national security argument.



The discrimination Israeli Arabs face, the destruction of religious sites, and the brutal treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank which amounts to state terrorism and collective punishment are indications that Israel’s human rights record is far from clear. Therefore, it cannot use the human rights abuses or the lack of democracy of the Palestinians as a bar to their claim of a right of return. When one scrutinizes the totally of circumstances surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it becomes clear that the Palestinians have a right of return. Only by leaving out information or skewing important facts – such as how Robert Spencer has done – is the moral and legal argument minimized.

[Jaysh]

Great post. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

[zzze]

assalamu alaykum

jazakallahkhair. A classmate during a presentation once said something along the lines of ''Isreal is nice to palestinians...they're provided with beds in their cells.''

[zzze]

assalamu alaykum

jazakallahkhair. A classmate during a presentation once said something along the lines of ''Isreal is nice to palestinians...they're provided with beds in their cells.''

[zeyneddine]

Great post br. Jinnz. Didnt know of about a lot of these.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by zeyneddine

Great post br. Jinnz. Didnt know of about a lot of these.

Perhaps you will rethink some of your stupid views then.

[zeyneddine]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Perhaps you will rethink some of your stupid views then.

which ones?

[jinnzaman]

Thanks for the kind comments.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Great post. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

What do you think about this one?

20 Years of Research Reveals: Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

by Hillel Fendel


(IsraelNN.com) Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: "Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law."

Gauthier has written a doctoral dissertation on the topic of Jerusalem and its legal history, based on international treaties and resolutions of the past 90 years. The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes. Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers - the Jewish one of whom has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions.

Gauthier's main point, as summarized by Israpundit editor Ted Belman, is that a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem. The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I - Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan - agreed to create a Jewish national home in what is now the Land of Israel.

San Remo
The relevant resolution reads as follows: "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Gauthier notes that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - but says nothing about any "political" rights of the Arabs living there.

The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is a "a sacred trust of civilization" to provide for the well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to form a Jewish national home in Palestine.

League of Nations
The League of Nations' resolution creating the Palestine Mandate, included the following significant clause: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted.

In 1945, the United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations - and assumed the latter's obligations. Article 80 of the UN Charter states: "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed, in or of itself, to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

UN Partition Plan
However, in 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan. It violated the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine in that it granted political rights to the Arabs in western Palestine - yet, ironically, the Arabs worked to thwart the plan's passage, while the Jews applauded it.

Resolution 181 also provided for a Special regime for Jerusalem, with borders delineated in all four directions: The then-extant municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns up to Abu Dis in the east, Bethlehem in the south, Ein Karem and Motza in the west, and Shuafat in the north.

Referendum Scheduled for Jerusalem
The UN resolved that the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a separate entity under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The regime was to come into effect by October 1948, and was to remain in force for a period of ten years, unless the UN's Trusteeship Council decided otherwise. After the ten years, the residents of Jerusalem "shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City."

The resolution never took effect, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 War of Independence and did not follow its provisions.

After 1967
After the Six Day War in 1967, Israel regained Jerusalem and other land west of Jordan. Gauthier notes that the UN Security Council then passed Resolution 242 authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until it had “secure and recognized boundaries.” The resolution was notably silent on Jerusalem, and also referred to the "necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem,” with no distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.

Today
Given Jerusalem's strong Jewish majority, Gauthier concludes, Israel should be demanding that the long-delayed city referendum on the city's future be held as soon as possible. Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. "Olmert is sloughing us off by saying [as he did before the Annapolis Conference two months ago], 'Jerusalem is not on the table yet,'" Gauthier concludes. "He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum, there is nothing to talk about."

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Perhaps you will rethink some of your stupid views then.

Just what I was gonna say, but you know what? He keeps claiming there's more than one person using his account.